 |
Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 2, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun.,
2001)
Amanda Berry and John Loughran Curriculum change in science teaching: the need to listen to teachers
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 2, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun.,
2001)
Amanda Berry and John Loughran Curriculum change in science teaching: the need to listen to teachers
|
The Science Curriculum and Standards FrameworkThe CSF was developed as one part of a National Curriculum change approach based around the National Profiles (1992) which were designed to influence the nature of the curriculum offered throughout Australian schools. The National Profiles were funded by the Federal Government in an attempt to bring curricula in all Australian schools into a similar pattern so that it was possible to 'know' the topic being taught at any particular year level anywhere in Australia. This was a bold move which foundered quickly as different State Governments altered the National Profiles to suit what they perceived as their Schools' needs so that the original notion of similar curricula across all Australian schools was soon lost. However, one important aspect of the National Profiles was that the Science Profile recognised the interplay between content and process and therefore acknowledged both as important in the curriculum documents. Also, in accord with all National Profiles, the Levels of Achievement were regarded as a way of demonstrating the range of learning outcomes possible across student age groups rather than as a 'measure' for a particular age group, thus reinforcing the notion that students are inevitably organised as mixed ability varying with both subjects and year level.
This approach to the National Profiles meant that different Levels of Learning existed within any cohort of students, also, that these differences similarly varied with that being studied. Hence a Year 7 student (first year of high school) may be regarded as achieving at Level 5 (approx. 14 years old) in Science, Level 3 (approx. 10 years old) in LOTE (Languages other than English), Level 4(approximately 12 years old) in Mathematics, and so on. The CSF in Science, whilst drawing on the National Profiles, adopted a very different interpretation of Learning Outcomes and Students' Progression and no longer recognised Science Processes as particularly important in terms of defining their value in teaching and learning. The CSF also redefined Learning Outcome Levels as a reflection of a particular Year Level at school (Level 1 - End of Prep Year; Level 2 - End of Year 2; Level 3 - End of Year 4; Level 4 - End of Year 6; Level 5 - End of Year 8; Level 6 - End of Year 10; Level 7 - Enrichment of those exceeding level 6). Clearly the two philosophies of learning which underpinned these approaches were not congruent and science teachers were confronted by two very different views of teaching and learning by their National and State Education Departments; two approaches almost diametrically opposed to one another.
Copyright (C) 2001 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 2, Issue 1, Article 1 (Jun., 2001)